HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment of Commerce - DNRCMONTANA
Department of Commerce
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
P.O. Box 200523 + Helena, Monlane 58020-0523
Phone: 408-841-2770 • Fax: 408-841-2771
TO: Local Governments and Others Interested in
the Treasure State Endowment Program
FROM: Jim Edgcomb, Manager
Treasure State Endowment Program
AUG 2 9 2005
? I
LL
- - - - ---------2005--
RE: = -- - - - - - °- - - -- -
[)ATE: August 9, Draft Application Guidelines for the Treasure State Endowment Program
The Montana Department of Commerce is pleased to acquaint you with the proposed
changes presented in the revision of the Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP)
Application Guidelines. The guidelines explain how cities, towns, counties, tribal
governments, and county water, sewer, and solid waste districts may apply for grants
through the program for the next two years. The guidelines also explain the policies that
the Department proposes to follow in evaluating TSEP construction grant applications that
will be presented to the Governor and the 2007 Legislature. The Department will hold a
public hearing on the proposed changes on September 15, 2005, and comments will
be accepted through September 23, 2005.
Rather than sending you the entire draft of the revised TSEP application guidelines, the
following points highlight the substantive changes that are being proposed:
1. Language was added to clarify what type of bridge projects are eligible for assistance
and whether they are likely to be competitive. Bridges that are proposed to be
replaced-with appropriately sized culvert-type structures -are eligible for TSEP
assistance. However, a culvert that is proposed to be replaced with another culvert is
generally not eligible for TSEP assistance. Pedestrian bridges, while eligible, are not
likely to score high enough to be funded unless the applicant can document that
serious health or safety issues are going to be resolved.
2. Language was added to clarify that proposed construction projects must be
comprised of "stand-alone' activities, and must be able to reasonably resolve a
deficiency without a subsequent phase and another grant from TSEP or other
sources. If there are elements of a project that the Department does not consider to
be "stand-alone," the Department may recommend that that portion of the proposed
project not be funded.
1
3. Descriptions of three forms of TSEP financial assistance (loans for construction
projects at a subsidized interest rate, loans for preliminary engineering studies, and
annual debt service subsidies for construction projects) were eliminated from the
guidelines since the 2005 Legislature amended the TSEP statute and eliminated
those types of financial assistance.
4. Grant applications for construction projects that will be awarded by the 2007
Legislature must be submitted to the Department of Commerce no later than May 5,
2006.
5. The maximum amount of TSEP grant funds that can now be requested for a
construction project has been raised from $500,000 to $750,000.
6. The maximum amount of TSEP construction grant funds that can now be requested
per benefited household has been raised from $7,500 to $15,000.
7. Language was added to clarify that un-developed, vacant lots are not counted as
benefited households, when computing the amount of grant per benefited household.
8. When considering a hardship grant for bridges, the second test has been changed to:
"the county must be able to demonstrate an extreme lack of financial resources
relative to the other counties in the State."
9. When considering a hardship grant for bridges, the third test "other sources of funds
are not available," the Department will look at the entire revenue picture of the county
in order to determine if it appears that funds could be shifted to help fund the project.
10. Language was added to notify applicants that meeting the three tests does not
guarantee that the Department will recommend applicants for a grant that exceeds
the $15,000 per benefited household or for a hardship grant. Other factors may be
taken into account by the Department when making its recommendations to the
Governor and Legislature, including issues such as whether the project area is
comprised of a high percentage of second homes that are not the primary residence
of their owners, or is comprised of a high percentage of un-developed, vacant lots.
11. Language was added to clarify that the grantee's personnel expenses are not eligible
for reimbursement, unless approved in advance by the Department. Work performed
by the applicant's employees will generally not be considered eligible for
reimbursement if it is work that the Department would consider to be normally within
the scope of duties performed by the employee and the person is a full-time
employee. Personnel expenses may be approved by the Department in situations
when a new person is hired in order to perform the additional project related duties, or
when a part-time employee is needed full-time in order to perform the additional
project related duties. Note that these expenses are still eligible as match.
12. The requirement to prepare a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) as part of the
proposed project, if one has not already been adopted, was eliminated. An applicant
will continue to typically receive more points during the ranking process if a CIP has
been adopted, especially if the plan comprehensively addresses all major community
facilities and is updated annually and utilized as part of the community's annual
capital budgeting process.
13. The opportunity to obtain a preliminary engineering hardship grant was eliminated.
All applicants will be required to provide a dollar-for-dollar match in order to show
local commitment.
14. Language was added to clarify that when applying for a preliminary engineering grant,
labor performed by the employees of the applicant is not eligible as match.
15. The following provisions were added clarifying how preliminary engineering grant
applications will be processed in the future:
• The- Department-will-start accepting- applications-after--January--1-,- -2969. - - --
Applications received prior to that date will be returned.
¦ Only complete applications will be processed and placed in line. The application
must be complete in all respects, including the documentation of the commitment of
matching funds.
¦ The Department will start awarding the grants as soon as the Legislature
appropriates the funds by passing HB 11 and the Governor signs the bill. This
typically occurs around the first of May.
• If there are more applications than funds available at the time grants are awarded,
priority will be given to those applicants that have not previously received a
preliminary engineering grant.
¦ Applications from local governments that received a preliminary engineering
grant in the previous cycle, for the same type of eligible project, will not be
processed until June 1St. If grant funds are still remaining on that date, complete
applications will be processed in the order that they were received. The June 1st
date does not apply if a local government submits an application for a different
system. For example, a city could submit a wastewater system PER in one
cycle and a water system PER in the next cycle. Or, a county could sponsor a
water system PER for one water user's association in one cycle and a water
system PER for a different water user's association in the next cycle.
- - -- Applications from local governments to-amend-or improve a recently completed
preliminary engineering report previously funded by TSEP, which did not result
in a project application, will only be considered after August 1 s`
• Applications from local governments to amend or improve a recently completed
preliminary engineering report that subsequently was awarded a TSEP
construction grant will only be considered after August 1St
¦ The Department reserves the right to limit the amount of the PER grant to an
amount appropriate to the scope of the planning project.
16. Language was added to clarify that the information necessary to score Statutory
Priorities #1 and #3 will be taken from the applicant's preliminary engineering report
(PER). Applicants do not need to provide any narrative response to this priority
unless they are providing additional information not contained in the PER. The
criteria that are listed are simply to inform applicants of the issues that will be looked
at in the scoring of this priority.
17. A provision was added to clarify that if the exact same project and PER was scored
through the CDBG ranking process within the two years prior to the application
submittal deadline, TSEP will accept the scores awarded to the applicant related to
Statutory Priorities #1 and #3.
18. The financial analysis methodology used to evaluate bridge projects was changed.
The new methodology will be based on the applicant's access to funds through taxes
and other sources that could potentially be used to fund bridge projects. The amount
of potential funding will be calculated on a per capita basis, and will be further
measured against the number of bridges that the county is responsible for
maintaining.
Your comments are very important to the Department. Please consider attending the
public hearing on September 15, 2005, at 1:30 p.m., at the Department of Commerce,
conference room 226, 301 S Park Ave, Helena, to provide comments on the revised
TSEP Application Guidelines. Written comments are strongly encouraged, and the
Department will accept them by mail (PO Box 200523, Helena, MT 59620), email
Qedgcomb@mt.gov), or fax (841-2771). Comments can also be submitted at the
public hearing so that your concerns or suggestions are clearly communicated. In
order for your comments to be considered, they must be received no later than
September 23, 2005.
Thank you for your time and consideration of the changes proposed in the revised TSEP
Application Guidelines. The entire text of the revised TSEP Application Guidelines can be
viewed on the program's web site (http://comdev.mt.gov/CDD_TSEP.asp), or a copy can
be provided if requested. Please contact the TSEP staff at 841-2770 if we can be of
assistance to you or if you have any questions regarding the proposed changes.
4